nottsblue wrote:To be honest, I don't see this latest attempt to derail either us or PSG or indeed any other upstarts threatening the G14 club cartel, succeeding. We have long gone past the days of having to pay over the odds for players and the wages on top to attract big names. The academy will likely either bring in good revenue or a couple of first teamers for the foreseeable future as well. Plus the crux of team have their best years ahead of them. Emerson, Walker, Mendy, Stones, KDB, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Silva B, Foden all have a good five or more years left in the tank. Commercial revenue is steadily climbing and as we are improving in the CL when sponsorship deals are up for renewal we will be in better bargaining positions. We have zero or marginal debt and are unlikely to.
All we can do is keep winning on the field and everything else will just take care of itself
Original Dub wrote:Of course it's to safe guard the elite overall. It might be partly disguised as being for the "good of the game" but if anyone thinks financial play was brought about to protect your average club, they're being completely naive.
Ffp and all other versions of it were brought about to stifle the progress of any club capable of breaking up the old guard.
It's very simple
john68 wrote:nottsblue wrote:To be honest, I don't see this latest attempt to derail either us or PSG or indeed any other upstarts threatening the G14 club cartel, succeeding. We have long gone past the days of having to pay over the odds for players and the wages on top to attract big names. The academy will likely either bring in good revenue or a couple of first teamers for the foreseeable future as well. Plus the crux of team have their best years ahead of them. Emerson, Walker, Mendy, Stones, KDB, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Silva B, Foden all have a good five or more years left in the tank. Commercial revenue is steadily climbing and as we are improving in the CL when sponsorship deals are up for renewal we will be in better bargaining positions. We have zero or marginal debt and are unlikely to.
All we can do is keep winning on the field and everything else will just take care of itself
Whilst I agree that should City's commercial success continue, then in the longer term, it should not affect us too much.
What we should never forget is that it has and is already affecting us.
The original City project was planned carefully to evolve far more slowly than what actually happened . 1) To invest in a team that would make CL qualification, thus raising City's global profile, which in turn allowed City to grow commercially, globally. CL qualification would also allow City to access the UeFA income streams to help fund the next stage of growth. It was publically announced as a 15yr project, largely self financing.
FFP1 changed that. Kaldhoon publicly stated that FFP1 caused City to speed up the process of creating a team for CL qualification. Speeded up to bring in players before the UeFA accounting period began.
The FFP1 cost forced City to readically change spending plans and make unplanned spending of many many £millions. In the short term it cost City, in the longer term it did no damage. The damage was done by UeFA and David Gill's auditing staff by reducing their perceived value of City's related sponsorship, which then allowed them to bringin City's spending that had originally fallen outside the accounting period. eg, the Carlos Tevez costs. We failed the FFPrs.
I don't think that UeFA have finalised the details of the FFP2 yet but you can rest assured that there will be some fine financial minds looking at City and PSG and working on ways to limit us.
It was reported that the big European clubs define City and PSG as nation clubs with a limitless pot to spend. Another factor is that Abu Dabble and Quatar are fiercely competitive with each other and have broken off diplomatic relations.
and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
johnny crossan wrote:and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
john68 wrote:nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
Not sure I understand NB. You agree with Samuels, yet disagreed when I said much the same?
john68 wrote:nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
Not sure I understand NB. You agree with Samuels, yet disagreed when I said much the same?
carl_feedthegoat wrote:johnny crossan wrote:and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
Nigels tackle after reading the above article.
mr_nool wrote:The one worrying thing in this new FFP outline that could really hurt us is the proposed limitation on number of players you can have on your books.
We have spent a lot of money on our academy and the business idea is to a big extent based on us loaning out the graduates to give them experience and to put them in the shopping window. I guess one work around could be to sell them cheaply to lower league clubs with big sell-on clauses, but I do think the club prefers to keep the players longer to have bigger control of their development.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: AFKAE, Beefymcfc, blues2win, C & C, carl_feedthegoat, carolina-blue, CTID Hants, Harry Dowd scored, HBlock Cripple, hyper, Indianablue, john@staustell, johnny crossan, Mase, mr_nool, Nigels Tackle, nottsblue, Paul68, PaulieIrish, PeterParker, PrezIke, rosbif cuisson 'bleu', ruralblue, salford city, Scatman, sheblue, Stan, stevefromdonny, Woodyblue, zuricity and 105 guests